Opinion

Anatole Kaletsky

An optimistic vision of Obama’s second term

By Anatole Kaletsky
November 7, 2012

President Barack Obama’s re-election is good news for the world economy and financial markets. Of course a victory by Mitt Romney, unlikely though it was, might have been even better news, which is perhaps why stock markets fell sharply after the election. If Romney had won, his promised tax cuts and willingness to ignore budget deficits would have delivered a big stimulus to the U.S. economy and triggered a potential boom. But even without this fiscal boost, recent U.S. economic indicators, especially on housing, employment and bank lending, have pointed clearly in the right direction – and now there is every reason to expect these positive trends to accelerate.

While the election was a genuine obstacle to U.S. economic recovery, the problem lay not in the policies of either Obama and Romney but in the uncertainty about whose policies would be implemented and what each party might do to sabotage the other’s plans. This political doubt delayed investment decisions and hiring plans, and, in corporate bank accounts and bond markets, clogged the flood of new money created by the Federal Reserve. Now that the election is over, this dam will start to open. Political polarization, at least on economic issues, will start to ease. And the confrontation over taxes and public spending looming at the end of the year should be resolved with much less rancor than expected. All these optimistic conclusions follow from one crucial feature of the election result: The calculations of self-interest for politicians in Washington, for investors on Wall Street and for business people across America have now been transformed.

Let us begin with the business community. Much of it has been fiercely opposed to President Obama, particularly to his signature policies of universal healthcare and restoring Bill Clinton’s top tax rates. Given that, surveys suggested that many companies, and especially small businesses, suspended normal decisions on hiring and investment for months before the election, while they waited for Obamacare to be abandoned and tax hikes to be ruled out.

That waiting game is now over. U.S. businesses can no longer hope for a new president who will restore the untrammeled free-market environment of George W. Bush. Instead of a theoretical choice between Obama’s new regulations and a free market utopia modeled on Ayn Rand, corporate executives must now choose between adapting to Obama’s policies, including healthcare, going out of business or finding another country with a friendlier business environment.

Once they confront this choice, a few may decide to move to Mexico, Canada or China, but most will surely acknowledge that the U.S. remains a relatively attractive place to do business and will simply build the costs of healthcare and taxes into their budgets. They will then switch their attention from politics to business as usual and get on with hiring or investment decisions that make financial sense in this new regulatory environment. If businesses refrain from investment or hiring from now on, this will be for financial reasons, not out of political unease.

A similar shift can be expected on Wall Street, as surprising numbers of investors and analysts believed that a Romney victory was likely and expected major changes in monetary policy. This possibility can now be ignored and investors can work on the certain knowledge that the Fed’s ultra-expansionary policies will continue until unemployment falls below 7 percent.

Some investors like the Fed’s policy, while others hate it, but all must now accept it as a fact of life, and then seek opportunities to profit in this environment. Once this ultra-expansionary monetary policy is taken for granted, such profit opportunities will surely be found in assets that benefit from stronger economic activity or higher inflation, such as equities, property and other productive assets, and not in those that benefit from deflation, like government bonds and cash. The consequent flow of money out of bonds into equities, homes and other growth-related assets is exactly what the Fed wants to encourage. As this flow accelerates, it will reinforce economic recovery and confidence. That should, in turn, help moderate political partisanship, at least on the economic front.

Which brings us to the new political calculus in Washington, for both the Republicans and Democrats. Until this week, the Republicans’ “No. 1 priority was to make Obama a one-term president,” as Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, famously declared. To make Obama unelectable, the Republican leaders were willing to threaten a default by the U.S. government or to push the country over a fiscal cliff. This destructive incentive is now gone. Since Obama can no longer be defeated or re-elected, the Republicans have nothing to gain from economic disruption, but potentially a lot to lose if obstructive tactics are seen as threatening jobs or damaging the business interests of their corporate supporters, who must live with Obama for four more years whether they like it or not.

Obama’s motivations are also transformed, however. Until this week, his main objective was re-election, and that demanded highly motivated Democratic activists. Starting today, the president’s main goal is securing a legacy.

Obama could be remembered as one of the most successful and effective presidents in modern history – the president who created universal healthcare, who crippled Al Qaeda, who pulled the U.S. economy out of its deepest post-war crisis and who laid the foundations for long-term fiscal solvency. But Obama knows he can only secure this legacy by breaking the gridlock in Washington and avoiding lame-duck status.

The changes in the Republican and Presidential political calculus almost guarantee a new willingness to compromise on both sides. With the job market improving, with the housing crisis largely over and the financial system returning to normal, Obama and the Republican congressional leaders will surely realize that compromise now serves their interests better than confrontation and sabotage. Only through some degree of cooperation can either side share in the credit for the strong economic recovery that could now lie ahead.

PHOTO: U.S. President Barack Obama gestures onstage during his election night victory rally in Chicago November 7, 2012. Beside Obama are Vice President Joe Biden (2nd R) and Biden’s wife Jill Biden.     REUTERS/Jason Reed

Comments
4 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Are you serious?

You state “That waiting game is now over. U.S. businesses can no longer hope for a new president who will restore the untrammeled free-market environment of George W. Bush. Instead of a theoretical choice between Obama’s new regulations and a free market utopia modeled on Ayn Rand, corporate executives must now choose between adapting to Obama’s policies, including healthcare, going out of business or finding another country with a friendlier business environment.

Once they confront this choice, but most will surely acknowledge that the U.S. remains a relatively attractive place to do business and will simply build the costs of healthcare and taxes into their budgets. They will then switch their attention from politics to business as usual and get on with hiring or investment decisions that make financial sense in this new regulatory environment. If businesses refrain from investment or hiring from now on, this will be for financial reasons, not out of political unease.”

I have news for you.

Multinational corporations have NEVER been motivated by a fear of Obama, and THIS IS business as usual.

THAT is why for decades more than “a few may decide to move to Mexico, Canada or China” and Asia — basically, anywhere but the US — since the “business environment” for them is terrible here.

By “business environment” I mean having to obey what few business laws remain, having to pay US workers a decent wage with benefits, and PAY THEIR TAXES (which are only a fraction of what they used to be a few decades ago).

You need to get your medication adjusted.

PLEASE do this battered nation a favor: STOP WRITING ARTICLES ABOUT WHICH YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Posted by Gordon2352 | Report as abusive
 

Really “Gordon2352″? “Stop writing articles about which you know absolutely nothing”? Let’s see, should I listen to a guy like this:

“Anatole Kaletsky is an award-winning journalist and financial economist who has written since 1976 for The Economist, the Financial Times and The Times of London before joining Reuters. His recent book, “Capitalism 4.0,” about the reinvention of global capitalism after the 2008 crisis, was nominated for the BBC’s Samuel Johnson Prize, and has been translated into Chinese, Korean, German and Portuguese. Anatole is also chief economist of GaveKal Dragonomics, a Hong Kong-based group that provides investment analysis to 800 investment institutions around the world.”

Or listen to an obvious Tea Bagging, sore losing Republican who has bought into the Party’s election year distortions and lies?

I think I’ll go with Anatole, and perhaps it is you who should have your meds checked.

Posted by GlennNM | Report as abusive
 

GlennNM@, I too appreciate Mr. Keletskys opinions, I think I value Nader Mousavizadeh “Uncertainty is not going away” opinion also posted here on Reuters a bit more based on Bio’s. Though Gordon was quite rude in his ranting, others actually do share his opinion, just not the way he expressed it.

Posted by tmc | Report as abusive
 

Bias as usual by the left.

“If Romney had won, his promised tax cuts and willingness to ignore budget deficits would have delivered a big stimulus to the U.S. economy and triggered a potential boom.”

You meant to say willingness to TACKLE the deficit. The guy that this country elected is the one who TOTALLY ignores the deficit to the point that he claims he has reduced it more than any other president in the world! :s

Posted by BioStudies | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •